This is the Email to the Australian Prime Minister on the 23/08/2024 with the report on inconsistencies and discrepancies.
Front page email and report with table of contents for supporting documents. The supporting documents are not attached.
23rd August 2024
The Australian Government, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet MC24-080848.
Dear Prime Minister,
The family of Elly Warren has been very disappointed with the inaction of the Australian authorities, and is very concerned with the inconsistencies with evidence and statements surrounding our daughter’s death given at her inquest in August 2023. These discrepancies and inconsistencies are of a very serious nature therefore the family is asking the Australian government for a full investigation of a formal inquiry into the matter to ensure this doesn't happen to other Australian families.
I have yet to receive any correspondence from the AFP to date with my previous correspondence.
Attached is a report explaining these inconsistencies and discrepancies with all the information to support all these factual concerns that Elly’s family has with Australian authorities.
Also attached is a short recording which is very relevant under the circumstances, taken from a meeting with the Melbourne pathologist on the 7th September 2017 with consent.
This email has also been sent to all relevant Australian agencies and people/agencies with past relevant connections with the matter.
Thank you for your consideration with these very concerning matters.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Warren
My report inconsistencies and discrepancies;
23rd August 2024
The below aspects to the inconsistencies and discrepancies in statements and evidence given at my daughter’s inquest, is mainly based around the fact this was not classified as a crime by the AFP. This is the requirement for the AFP to review the process of sending the formal Mutual Assistance Request to the Mozambique Attorney General to offer our assistance and to retrieve vital evidence.
b) Melbourne pathologist autopsy report of undetermined.
There are major inconsistencies and discrepancies with my daughter's investigation not only from overseas, but also with the Australian authorities. The AFP has not acknowledged that the top is ripped apart in the clear crime scene photo with any statement, file or evidence given at the inquest or to this present day.
I do fully understand the gravity of the critical evidence and the fact that this trace evidence needed to be passed over to the investigating authorities which have jurisdiction over the investigation. A point raised by the AFP lawyer about my views on the passing over of this critical evidence to the Mozambique authorities transcript page 286. This is of major significance as the AFP lawyer clearly states the AFP would assist as best it could:- “with whatever means the AFP had available to it through testing and analysis and so on”.
What I do take a major issue with is when analyzing this clear version of the crime scene photo it becomes very obvious that my daughters T- Shirt is ripped apart to such a degree that it is destroyed. The AFP as the major police authority overseas representing Australians with crime overseas has the responsibility for any vital trace evidence that it has acquired having been given this critical evidence by DFAT and having this critical trace evidence for 14 days before handing it over to the Mozambique inspector. Why then did the AFP not inform Elly’s family and the coroner that they intend to hand over this explicit photo showing our daughter's naked body, with the highly suspicious critical details of my daughter’s T-shirt ripped apart in such a manner that it is totally destroyed? This photo was even given to the VIFM forensic laboratory in 2016 and they did not even inform anyone or the coroner of these critical details in 2016. Why has there never been a report completed on this critical evidence by the VIFM or AFP and sent to the coroner in 2016/17 ? The coroner was not in a position to ask for a report on the clear version of the crime scene photograph because she was not even aware of its existence at the time by our police authorities. The AFP has jurisdiction over any critical crime scene evidence therefore being responsible for this critical evidence. What is going on with our major investigating authorities supporting the coroner and not reporting on these vital crime scene details in the clear version of the crime scene photograph, especially to the coroner who was conducting a colonial investigation in 2016 of a suspicious death of an Australian citizen! This is a very serious issue under these circumstances of a suspicious death of a young Australian citizen. This is very disappointing by the Australian authorities and this vital evidence should have been treated with more due diligence and respect having let down Elly and Elly’s family by not carrying out their sworn duty in a proper effective manner, withholding details of vital trace evidence from the family and coroner in 2016. I am very concerned for other Australian families when faced with these same circumstances from overseas.
There are major inconsistencies with the AFP commander’s evidence which was vital under the circumstances for this being classified as a crime by the AFP. The AFP commander states in evidence at the inquest this was not classified as a crime at this time by the AFP because the autopsy report was not from a law enforcement authority, it's from a doctor. When in actual fact the AFP were given this autopsy report which states homicide and also an official SERNIC police report also stating homicide. The AFP were fully aware it was classified as a homicide with this official SERNIC police report endorsing and supporting their autopsy finding of homicide on the 10th April 2017! However the AFP commander states and clearly clarified that the first time the AFP was aware of the Mozambique authorities stating this was a homicide was in May 2023 when the commander had gone over to Mozambique. The classification by the investigation authorities of crime/ homicide is a requirement for a review to send the mutual assistance request by the AFP as stated in evidence given at the inquest by the AFP commander “This would be a factor”. This evidence given by the AFP commander is clearly not correct as the certification of homicide/crime was verified to the AFP on the 10th April 2017 for the first time, not May 2023. Inquest Transcript page 93-94 and 88.
Honorary Consul Inconsistent Evidence Given at the inquest
Another very important issue is due to the inconsistencies of evidence with the Honorary consul at the inquest. The AFP Lawyer had informed Mr Cain of the fact that there was no clear evidence in the brief of the timeline link for the clear crime scene photograph and how the clear photo was provided in my oral submissions on the 11th December. The AFP lawyer was attempting to question the validity of the chain of evidence and brought this to the attention of Mr Cain casting doubt over the timeline link for how this critical evidence of the clear crime scene photo ended up in the hands of DFAT. (Transcript page 287).
This could have effectively taken out this vital evidence of the clear crime scene photo from evidence and the facts in the court from my oral submissions transcript stating that the AFP had the clear crime scene photo in November 2016 clearly depicting the ripped apart top for 14 days before handing over this explicit photo to the Mozambique police after clearly stating it was not a crime in 2016/17.
However Mr Cain’s reply to the AFP lawyer as the AFP lawyer offered to look into the timeline link for Mr Cain was ;-, “I don’t think the timeline will assist. I think there is already information about the sequence of those various steps”.
This was due to the Honorary Consul evidence given at the inquest two weeks prior transcript Pages 125,128, that there was no follow up by him or the fisherman to him in obtaining the clear crime scene photograph from the fisherman in 2016. The Honorary consul clarifies in evidence that he was not aware of any clear photograph sent to the embassy/ DFAT in 2016.
However solid factual evidence for the timeline link provided was always in the brief as official correspondence provided which was from DFAT’s Claire McComish letter and Australian Lawyer Evan Evagorau correspondence to the court which clearly explains this timeline link of the clear crime scene photo transferred over from the Honorary consul to the DFAT embassy staff in Pretoria. Contradicting the Honorary consul evidence as the source of this information is supplied by DFAT on separate occasions both in official letters to the court. (See letters in Supporting evidence below)
The AFP did not initially take a statement from the Honorary consul as the AFP stated they were not investigating Ms Warren’s death, but they were supporting the coroner with her colonial investigation with the matter. We asked for the Honorary consul to be a witness at the inquest as the first official respondent sent to the crime scene and for the court to obtain a statement from the Honorary consul.
It must also be noted I obtained the same clear crime scene photo on my investigation trip to Mozambique in October 2018 and emailed this same clear version of the clear crime photograph from Mozambique to Kate Sanderson at the coroner’s court at this time. This clear photo was entered into evidence at the time by the coroner’s assistant Mr Taylor because this was the very first time that the family and coroner’s court was aware of this clear version of the crime scene photograph when I gave it to the court two years after my daughter's death.
Clear Crime scene photo Analyzed by the AFP.
This same clear crime scene photo I obtained from Mozambique and placed into evidence at the time was Analyzed by the AFP/SLO on page 21 of his action sheet as he clearly states that it is the same photograph he was given in 2016 which is the clear version not the blurred as 60 minutes had only blurred a section of this clear version of the photo for obvious reasons. The clear version of the crime scene photo was analyzed by the AFP/SLO on the 7th November 2018 which he states was from 60 minutes as the top of my daughter's body is clear and not blurred clearly showing the ripped apart top and surrendering area is also not blurred when analyzing this clear version of the crime scene photograph.
This clear version of the crime scene photograph was the only version 60 minutes had obtained from our trip to Mozambique in 2018. This was significant as the AFP/SLO in omitting to analyzing this clear photograph is confirming the AFP was aware again of the ripped apart top in November 2018. The family and coroner were not aware of the clear version of the crime scene photograph showing the ripped apart top at this time before my trip to Mozambique in October 2018 or anytime after but the AFP have been fully aware about the details of this critical evidence all along which as I have said is not mentioned in any statements or evidence given to this day by the AFP.
I reiterate the AFP/SLO in analyzing this clear version of the photograph on the 7th November 2018 as stated in the AFP/SLO’s action sheet that it was the same version he had obtained in 2016. Therefore the AFO/SLO has failed to report the ripped apart top again to the coroner after stating clearly in his action sheet he had analyzed this same clear version of the photograph from 60 minutes and has confirmed this clear photo was the same photograph he obtained in 2016.
The AFP/SLO has also failed to mention in his statement that he had received this clear version of the crime scene photograph in November 2016 and that he had handed this clear version over to the Mozambique inspector on the 8th December 2016. This is confirmed by the correspondence below from Clair McComish letter on the 22nd March 2019.
Inconsistencies with AFP lawyer submissions and with evidence given.
There are also inconsistencies with evidence given by the AFP’s Lawyer relating to the confirmation that this was a crime with his submissions given to the court and with verbal evidence given at my oral submissions at the Inquest on the 11th of December 2023. This is also fully explained in my response to the AFP statement given to the Australian government. That on the 18th September 2023 No18 (B) Pg 7. The AFP’s Lawyer states:-
‘At No point before 19th of May 2023 did the Mozambique law enforcement authorities state that Ms. Warren's death was a homicide no police officer has ever said that'.
In oral submissions with Mr Cain on the 11th December 2023 the AFP Lawyer states that for a matter of clarification Mr Warren points out on page 13 of the AFP action sheet that this is an official Mozambique police report on the 10th April. “I simply wish to point out that the action sheet refers to an autopsy report” which had confused Mr Cain at the time. Transcript page 291.
This is not a Mozambique autopsy report as stated on transcript page 284 by the AFP Lawyer. At the top of page 13 of the AFP action sheet this is an official revised police report from SERNIC on the 10th of April endorsing their own autopsy report. The SLO from the embassy representing DFAT had sent a police report on the 6th April 2017 to the AFP/SLO which is at the bottom of page 12 of the action sheet stating overdose. DFAT’s SLO then sent the revised SERNIC Mozambique police report stating homicide on the 10th April 2017 to the AFP/SLO on the same date which is at the top of page 13 of the action sheet. It must be noted that this critical information is also not stated in the SLO’s statement to the court mentioned further below. I pointed out at the end of my submissions to Mr Cain that this was a police report and not an autopsy report as stated by the AFP lawyer. Transcript page 291. This is all stated as facts in the transcript pages below 284,285.291.
Below is the paragraph taken from the AFP/SLO action sheet and is the reference made in the action by the AFP Lawyer as an autopsy report when in fact it is a revised SERNIC police report on the 10 April 2017. This Mozambique document as stated here in the AFP action sheet states that suffocation was the cause of death. What is not disclosed here in the action sheet is that this same document also states homicide and is in fact a revised police report from SERNIC. The AFP lawyer does not disclose that this is in fact a police report on page 13 of the action sheet in my oral submissions on the 11th December 2023 to Mr Cain.
The reference on page 13 in the AFP action sheet states:- ‘10 April 2017 received correspondence from Stacey Walker DFAT Pretoria which is an English translation of a Mozambique document indicating that the autopsy results for Elly Warren indicated that Suffocation was the probable cause of death’.
This official Mozambique document on page 13 of the AFP action sheet is a police report from (SERNIC) and is from their top criminal authorities in Mozambique. Therefore as the conclusion to their autopsy report is printed on an official police report by the Mozambique police as they are supporting/endorsing the fact that this matter is a Homicide in April 2017. Stating that:- This is being treated as a homicide. Which is very important as I have said for clarification for the AFP to review and send the MAR. However the AFP has not presented it in this manner on page 13 of their action sheet choosing to say this is an autopsy report that states suffocation not a police report that also states homicide!!
(This police report from the SLO in Pretoria on the 10 April is below in the supporting evidence).
DFAT’s SLO Statement
DFAT’s SLO in Pretoria has failed to mention vital evidence that she obtained. This is the official revised police report from SERNIC stating homicide and had given this official revised police report to the AFP/SLO by email on the 10th April 2017 (AFP action sheet Pg. 13) This revised police report officially endorsed the fact it is a homicide by SERNIC proving a crime has been committed to the Mozambique police authorities only six months after my daughter’s death.
The AFP were responsible for taking this statement from DFAT’s SLO stationed at the embassy in Pretoria as requested by me and my legal team to the coroner’s court. This vital evidence of the revised Mozambique police report which is in the AFP action sheet on this same date from SERNIC and is not mentioned in her statement confirming a crime of homicide on the 10th of April 2017? This classification of a crime/homicide stated by the SERNIC police authorities is critical evidence and confirms the crime requirement for the AFP to send and review the mutual assistance request at this early stage of the investigation as the AFP were fully aware that the Mozambique police did not have the required resources to conduct a detailed homicide investigation with evidence given at the inquest by witnesses.
There are also other inconsistencies with evidence given by the AFP/SLO and the AFP commander at the inquest which are mentioned in my first report to the Australian government with my response to the AFP Statement. Also mentioned is the meeting with the Melbourne pathologist all recorded where the AFP had the clear version of the crime photo in 2016 but there was no mention of this by any of the three AFP officers at this very important meeting on the 7th September 2017 with the Melbourne pathologist around one year after my daughter’s death. The Melbourne pathologist who conducted my daughter’s autopsy in Melbourne was not given the clear version of the crime scene photo, he only had the blurred photo. He was also never given the South African autopsy photos clearly showing the abrasions and bruising on my daughter's face before this meeting eleven months after my daughter’s death! The AFP obtained these South African autopsy photographs showing the abrasions to my daughter’s face as it’s referred to on page 11 of the AFP action sheet on the 22nd of November 2016.
The Victorian Coroner’s Court
Elly's family also questions the coroner’s court and the process which has disadvantaged the family to present our full case to the coroner at the inquest in August last year.
Elly’s family was disadvantaged at the inquest by not being able to have all our relevant witnesses examined by our barrister that we had requested. It must be noted the court had given us their witness list on the 3rd August just over two weeks before the inquest. Our reply letter (below) to retain Dr O’ Donnell (Radiologist) was dated Wednesday 9th August and the inquest commenced on Tuesday 22nd August. As we all were in shock the court did not initially call Dr O’ Donnell as a witness this left us with no time to have retained Mr Roo’s and Mr Bezzina.
The coroner’s court can manipulate proceedings as they have the monopoly on the witnesses called for the inquest, and how the witnesses are cross-examined! The coroner’s court did not want Dr. O’Donnell to give evidence who was a critically relevant witness because they were concerned about their VIFM pathologist's failure to report the sand in his autopsy report which was proven by the radiology scan. In 2019 I had been asked by Mr Taylor the coroner’s assistant at the time that I needed to request this scan myself and this radiology report was then presented to the court in 2019. This came about because I asked if there were any fractures to Elly’s head with all the abrasions and bruising to my daughter's face proven by the autopsy photographs taken in South Africa and also the fact the vital trace evidence of the ladies sanitary item had gone missing in Melbourne. The Melbourne pathologist was asked this question by Mr Taylor about any fractures to the head of my daughter and he said he did not know but a radiology scan would be able to identify any fractures. However I was very surprised to also find that the radiology report had discovered all the sand in my daughter's airways which obviously produced more unanswered questions at this time. It was very obvious to everyone in my team that the court was very concerned with the radiologist potential evidence at the inquest exposing the Melbourne Pathologist as we had to inform and explain to the court with correspondence how relevant and critical the radiologist was to the proceedings and cause of death. The coroner’s court is “very protective” of the doctor’s at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (“VIFM”) also stationed at the court which is a strong “conflict of interest” for all cases conducted at the Victorian coroner’s court.
It must be noted in Mr Cain's findings at No 39-40 where he is explaining the reason for not having some relevant witnesses from overseas and witnesses he had not called. There is no mention that the court did not want the radiologist initially and we needed to change the coroner’s mind. We needed to convince Mr Cain with solid factual relevant evidence for the reasons why we require the radiologist as a relevant witness, eventually changing Mr Cain’s mind. (See letter below to Mr Cain). If I had known prior how the inquest proceedings really operated making it very difficult for the family, I would not have requested an inquest into my daughter’s death but I felt it was very important that it is established by Australian authorities that my daughter's death is a homicide.
Comment from his Honour from the court transcript pg, 129 below at the recent inquest :-
29 HIS HONOUR: YES. LET ME DEAL WITH DR.O'DONNELL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. HE WAS AN INPUT INTO DR LYNCH'S REPORT AND HE'S ONLY HERE BECAUSE YOUR CLIENT REQUESTED IT.
I really don’t understand this above statement from Mr Cain at all as my legal team fully explained prior to the inquest that the Melbourne pathologist had know idea about the sand in my daughter’s airways, therefore we pointed out these facts in detail with a letter send to Mr Cain on the 9th August 2023 that in the Melbourne pathologist supplementary report dated the 19th September 2019 he states, ‘it is not possible to quantify the amount of sand identifiable on the CT images.
However the radiologist had an excellent understanding of his own report having no trouble identifying the very high density levels of sand having a very good understanding/knowledge about these very high density readings of sand in the airways and how this had affected and blocked the airways with both lungs “full” of sand which he had explained all these facts fully to the court at the inquest. This radiology scan was taken before the Melbourne pathologist autopsy was completed on the 22nd November 2016 as the CT scan was performed just before the Melbourne autopsy which generated the radiology scan and report as it was taken from the CT scan proving sand as the cause of death in 2016! Therefore why not have such a relevant critical witness which can explain the very high density/volume levels recorded of sand, and its effect on the cause of death when The Melbourne pathologist was clearly not in a position to do so as stated in his supplementary report 2019 this was fully explained to the coroner by my legal team! (Letter to Mr Cain in supporting evidence from my lawyer)
Mr Cain with his background knowledge of these facts with Dr O’ Donnell (Radiologist) and with his experience would have been fully aware of how important the radiologist evidence was to proceedings. We should not have to send a letter to explain to Mr Cain how important the radiologist is as a relevant witness especially as Dr Klepp had not accepted to be a witness at this time days before the inquest and only accepted at the very last minute. This was due to Nicole (Elly’s Mother) asking Dr Klepp at the very last minute could she please be a witness through the court's assistant at this time. Without the radiologist, there was a very high possibility Dr Klepp was not going to be a witness, leaving only the Melbourne pathologist as a witness who had know idea about the sand and did not find these amounts of sand with Both lungs full of sand which is not reported in his official autopsy report!
The Radiologist evidence given at the inquest was captivating and fully explained the proven facts with his radiology scan which supported the other two autopsy facts pertaining to the packed sand in the airways. The radiologist evidence given at the inquest has confirmed for a fact that the Melbourne Pathologist examination of my daughter’s body was Suboptimal, causing the long delay from the coroner’s court to determine the cause of death. We knew this from the radiology report already, but the evidence given from the radiologist at the inquest confirmed this without question. The radiologist evidence was vital in determining the cause of death and the court did not want these facts on the court transcript as factual evidence because it exposed the Melbourne pathologist from their VIFM team.
Below is also the Transcript pages 129-130 where Mr Cain clearly implies the Radiologist and the Melbourne pathologist are together in their report which is the reason why he did not want Dr O’Donnell as a witness. However Mr Cain was fully aware their viewpoints on the sand were miles apart with correspondence sent to Mr Cain by my lawyer explaining these reasons in detail and why we require the radiologist with the difference of opinions with the sand between the two doctors proven without question by evidence given at the inquest by the radiologist. “The Density of the sand in the airways is equivalent to bone density and that both lungs are full with sand”
My barrister had also asked Mr Cain that it was imperative we cross-examine the three doctors separately so that we can extract the full evidence from each doctor in a systematic manner without interruptions from having to speak with all three doctors at once making it confusing to cross-examine all three doctors at the same time. However the coroner refused our request then had another discussion with another party in chambers before the doctors gave evidence which upset my barrister and lawyer. I was not wise to this fact until after, when they both informed me of these circumstances.
Inspector Roo’s and Mr Charlie Bezzina were also not called as witnesses
Inspector Roo’s and Mr Bezzina were also not called as witnesses by the Court as a relevant witness. We had given the court as requested a short paragraph description only for all of our relevant witnesses and the reasons why Mr Roo’s and Mr Charlie Bezzina were very important relevant witnesses to present our case to Mr Cain. Both these witnesses were going to explain that the factual evidence concluded homicide.
In an official letter marked confidential from the AFP to Mr Cain on the 19th June 2023 not shown in this report but it is in the brief, it states Inspector Roo’s updated verbal evidence and factual evidence from the reports was critical relevant evidence mentioned to AFP commander Smith therefore Mr Roo’s had first hand knowledge being on the ground in Mozambique. This was due to the fact Mr Roo’s and Dr Gracio Abdule had obtained further critical evidence working with the Mozambique police to reopen the case and was instrumental in further evidence obtained reaffirming the facts of homicide with this matter. Mr Roo’s had been directly working alongside the new Mozambique inspector assigned to the case exploring further proof of evidence which reaffirmed their conclusion of Homicide in April 2017 to the AFP again in May 2023. Dr Gracio Abdule had been given permission to view and read the Mozambique case file and in a close working relationship with Mr Roo’s working on the matter therefore he would have been made aware of its contents.
From Mr Cain's Findings No, 190 below.
190. ‘The inquest was conducted, and this finding was written without having the opportunity to review any material held by Mozambique authorities. It is possible that this material may become available at a later date’.
The AFP acknowledged as fact the importance of Mr Roo’s in the official classified letter stating Commander Smith had spoken to Mr Roo’s in South Africa and Dr Abdule in Maputo in May 2023 and that they were knowledgeable with the case and working together on the matter and were willing to assist the court. Therefore Roo's, if examined by my barrister, was in a position to give evidence to the court of a vital updated information on the factual evidence concluding homicide by the Mozambique police at the inquest having direct involvement. My legal team had informed Mr Cain of these circumstances. Mr Roo’s had informed myself and Nicole Elly’s mother that he would agree to be a witness at the inquest. Mr Roo’s old report on the matter in 2019 was accepted by the coroner in the brief as trace evidence which also states the evidence points to homicide.
This classified letter to Mr Cain is vital evidence as it states again homicide from the Mozambique police having the trace evidence with suspects but not enough evidence to charge anyone. The deputy Attorney General has stated also that if the Australian authorities wish to obtain their case file they will need to send the official Mutual Assistance Request to their attorney general respecting this official process between the two countries.
As I have stated Mr Roo’s evidence with his direct involvement working with Dr Gracio on the matter was vital proving homicide. Therefore I don't understand why Mr Cain did not want Mr Roo's or Dr O’Donnell as witness because without Dr Klepp these two witnesses, I would have thought were the most relevant to have as witnesses at the inquest as Mr Cain was fully aware of their importance explained in letters to the court before the inquest. Mr Roo’s importance was explained by the AFP to Mr Cain in their classified letter as I have said is in the Brief. The only reason I can think of for Mr Cain not to have had Mr Roo’s as a witness could have been they were concerned again for the Melbourne pathologist who has stated he did not find any sand whatsoever in his examination and concluded Undetermined, when in fact my daughter was murdered in 2016. Mr Roo’s factual evidence to the manner of my daughter’s death proving why the Mozambique police have classified this as a homicide would have concurred also with sand blocking the airways as the cause of death by evidence given at the inquest by the radiologist and Dr Klepp. This proves without question the suboptimal examination of the Melbourne pathologist with his findings to the coroner by stating the cause and manner of death as Undetermined in 2016. When in fact the evidence given at the inquest clearly proved the cause of death in 2016 with the abundance of sand present at the time of the Melbourne autopsy which would have raised further suspicions on the manner of death of my daughter in 2016.
A short recording is attached to this email from a meeting with the Melbourne pathologist, family, AFP and the coroner’s assistant, that he did not find any sand and would state this in court on the 7th September 2017. I needed to point out to the pathologist at the time that he had found some sand (residue) and it’s in his report. Indicating he had no idea about the sand in 2016 which was proven by evidence given at the inquest. This was proven by also evaluating the radiology report with both lungs full with sand and very high density levels of sand detected all the way down my daughter’s airways at the time of the Melbourne autopsy, which is not mentioned in his official autopsy report. This meeting with the pathologist was all recorded with consent.
Mr Charlie Bezzina had not been directly involved on the ground like Mr Roo’s. However we all felt as Mr Bezzina was a very experienced and well respected retired homicide detective and was one of Melbourne's leading detectives who worked on Elly’s case from Melbourne for well over four years, would be in a position to support inspector Roo’s evidence as a relevant witness.
Closing statement
In closing I would just like to say, with all these above factual discrepancies by the Australian authorities, what hope did Elly’s family ever have of Justice for our daughter or for that matter what hope does any Australian family have to obtain Justice when a loved one dies suspiciously overseas especially in a third world country.
Paul Warren
The Factual supporting evidence table of contents in chronological order corresponding with the above report:
Note I have not attached the supporting evidence just the table of contents below.
Inquest transcript page 286 from Elly Warren's inquest on the 11th December 2023. How can the AFP be officially in a position to offer out resources to assist the Mozambique authorities when they did not send the official mutual assistance request.
Transcript pages 93-94 and 88 from the inquest dated 23/08/2023. The AFP commander states the AFP should review the circumstances that Elly's death was a crime if the Law enforcement authorities were to classify Elly’s death as a crime. SERNIC had classified Ms Warren's death as a crime by homicide with their official revised police report supporting their autopsy report conclusion of homicide on the 10th April 2017.
Transcript Page 287 the AFP lawyer referring to the Clear crime photo timeline link provided into evidence casting doubt of this timeline.
The Honorary consul evidence at the inquest dated 23/08/2023 transcript pages 125 and 128.
Letter from the Assistant secretary Claire McComish dated the 22nd of March relevant pages 2 and 3. Pg 2 under photos and other items.
Letter from the Australian Government solicitor Evan Evagorou dated 16th June 2023.
Transcript page 284-285 and 291 the AFP lawyer states this is an autopsy report not a police report. The AFP have submitted the first time it was stated a homicide was in May 2023. My response to the AFP Lawyer stating its an autopsy report not a police report referred to on page 13 of the AFP action sheet at my oral submissions to Mr Cain.
The official revised Mozambique police report from SERNIC from DFAT referenced in the AFP action as a Mozambique Document at the top of page 13 which was sent to the AFP/SLO by DFAT’s SLO from the Australian embassy in Pretoria. This official revised SERNIC police report with their letterhead is in the colonial Brief.
Letter to Mr Cain from my lawyer explains the reasons why the radiologist was so relevant to proceedings.
Transcript pages 128-130 Mr Cain states that the Radiologist and Melbourne Pathologist were together in his report however they could not be further apart with their evidence given at the inquest as the Melbourne pathologist had no idea whatsoever about the sands effect on the cause of death!!
Below is the letter sent on the 9th August 2023 to Mr Cain explaining the vital importance of Dr. O'Donnell as a witness.
2 Proposed witness list
2.1 We have had an opportunity to consider the proposed witness list provided to our office on 3 August 2023. We are instructed to request that the Court reconsider its decision not to call Dr Christopher O’Donnell as a witness at the inquest in this matter.
2.2 Mr Warren is concerned that the absence of Dr. O’Donnell as a witness in this matter may lead to the questions of whether sand was present in Ms Warren’s lungs, trachea and larynx, the volume of sand present and the likely impact of that sand on Ms Warren’s cause of death, being underdeveloped at the inquest. The radiology report prepared by Dr O’Donnell is complex and we consider the Court would be assisted by Dr O’Donnell being able to fully explain and clarify the matters contained within his report.
2.3 Mr Warren considers the presence of hyperdense foreign material in areas of Ms Warren’s lungs, larynx and trachea as identified in the radiology report as critical evidence relating to Ms Warren’s cause of death. We understand that the bright white areas in the images produced in Dr. O’Donnell’s report are of very high density. On this basis it appears that the sand identified in Ms Warren’s lungs, trachea and larynx is denser than some of Ms Warren’s bones in the surrounding areas. In our view, this suggests that there may have been a significant blockage to Ms Warren’s airways. This is relevant to determining Ms Warren’s cause of death.
2.4 Further, we understand that the density of the material identified on the scans, may be quantified using the Hounsfield system of measurement. For example, in his report, Dr O’Donnell has allocated a density of 1290 HU to the material located in Ms Warren’s larynx. The ability to quantify the density of the material identified in Ms Warren’s airways may have significant bearing on determining Ms Warren’s cause of death. The Hounsfield system of measurement is not explained in Dr. O’Donnell’s report and accordingly there is no material presently before the Court which explains what conclusions can be drawn from the density values Dr. O’Donnell has ascribed in his report.
2.5 Finally, Mr Warren feels that Dr. O’Donnell is the most appropriate person to speak to the contents of his report and opine on the likely density of the material identified in the images contained within that report. This belief is supported by the fact Dr Lynch in his report dated 5 July 2017 was only able to identify some residual sand in Ms Warren’s trachea and bronchi. Further, Dr Lynch’s supplementary report dated 19 September 2019 states that ‘it is not possible to quantify the amount of sand identifiable on the CT images.’ Accordingly, any clarification regarding the likely quantity of sand found in Ms Warren’s airways will require Dr O’Donnell’s evidence as to the Hounsfield system of measuring density and the meaning of the density values attributed to the material found in his report.
2.6 In these circumstances, we are instructed to request Dr O’Donnell’s inclusion as a witness for the inquest. We are grateful to His Honour Judge Cain for his consideration of Mr Warren’s request.
